Zarxrax
Member
Everyone says that you when learning 2x2, you should try ortega, because it's so much better than LBL, and blah blah blah. So you know, I believed it of course. I have used ortega for maybe 5 months now, and my average has come down to just under about 9 seconds.
But, I've started learning CLL recently, so the first layer was something of a concern for me. I was curious how much slower I would be if I had to build a full layer instead of just a face. Doing some timing of just the first layer, I found that I'm about 1 second slower with the whole first layer, which seemed about right (about 3 seconds for a face, about 4 for a layer).
And then, just for fun, I thought I would try doing an average with LBL method, just to see how much slower it was than ortega for me. So, having not even really tried LBL method in many months, I proceeded to take an average.
And the results shocked me. I set a new PB single & a new PB average. (4.61, and 7.67, respectively).
After the initial shock, I immediately realized what was going on. LBL method has a very high chance (1/6) of a PLL skip!
In ortega, a PBL skip is impossible (unless you solve the full first layer, in which case you are just doing LBL).
anyway, my point is that I had always just dismissed the normal LBL method because everyone says to go with ortega, but LBL in fact has it's own advantages, and can be very fast! (and I suppose it didn't help me any that I learned about 2x2 methods from Erik's site, where he says you can get 'just about sub 10' with the LBL method and 5.25 with ortega. Ortega is twice as fast, LOLZ)
Now, on to my question. I was just wondering what sorts of averages other people get for both LBL (first layer, oll, pll), and also ortega. It would be interesting to see comparisons from a broad sample.
But, I've started learning CLL recently, so the first layer was something of a concern for me. I was curious how much slower I would be if I had to build a full layer instead of just a face. Doing some timing of just the first layer, I found that I'm about 1 second slower with the whole first layer, which seemed about right (about 3 seconds for a face, about 4 for a layer).
And then, just for fun, I thought I would try doing an average with LBL method, just to see how much slower it was than ortega for me. So, having not even really tried LBL method in many months, I proceeded to take an average.
And the results shocked me. I set a new PB single & a new PB average. (4.61, and 7.67, respectively).
After the initial shock, I immediately realized what was going on. LBL method has a very high chance (1/6) of a PLL skip!
In ortega, a PBL skip is impossible (unless you solve the full first layer, in which case you are just doing LBL).
anyway, my point is that I had always just dismissed the normal LBL method because everyone says to go with ortega, but LBL in fact has it's own advantages, and can be very fast! (and I suppose it didn't help me any that I learned about 2x2 methods from Erik's site, where he says you can get 'just about sub 10' with the LBL method and 5.25 with ortega. Ortega is twice as fast, LOLZ)
Now, on to my question. I was just wondering what sorts of averages other people get for both LBL (first layer, oll, pll), and also ortega. It would be interesting to see comparisons from a broad sample.